If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Kos)   McCain touches third rail. RIP, McCain campaign   (dailykos.com) divider line 224
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

7410 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Jul 2008 at 2:56 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



224 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-07-09 03:14:57 PM  
I hope he hangs his hat on this issue. Even true blue sycophants left Bush twisting in the wind when he tried to kill SS.
 
2008-07-09 03:15:00 PM  
Maybe if the democrats would allow privatization, this wouldn't be an issue. After all, he's absolutely right.
 
2008-07-09 03:16:23 PM  
jjorsett:Ponzi Scheme


www.jimkukral.com

those were happy days.
 
2008-07-09 03:16:52 PM  
Dancin_In_Anson:tgregory:wait... saying "social security is a disgrace" is campaign ending?

Well, it does go against the "what can my country do for me" train of thought that is all the rage.


Paying taxes into SS to help the poor and disabled is doing something for your country.
 
2008-07-09 03:16:53 PM  
DrillSergeantPoopyPants:Maybe if the democrats would allow privatization, this wouldn't be an issue. After all, he's absolutely right.

Why didn't the republicans? They had 6 years to do it.
 
2008-07-09 03:18:41 PM  
He's right that it needs to be fixed, but he's wrong about there being a problem with younger workers paying FICA to fund the retirement payments of seniors. That's how SS works: you pay in when you're young enough to work, and when you are too old to work you get to take out. Very simple, and very successful.

The problem is that politicians from both sides of the aisle have been too gutless for the last 5 decades to adequately address the fact that life expectancy improvements have resulted and will result in a greater percentage of the population on the 'old' side of the fence. Something will have to give, either we raise revenues (increase payroll tax, levy additional taxes to benefit SS) or decrease expenditures (raise retirement age, lower cost of living adjustments to something more appropriate than current CPI index).

You can't simply throw the system out without massive transitional funding to cover the cost of current and near retirees. Someones got to pay.

But its definitely not the death knell of the McCain candidacy. In fact, although I suspect his solution will be more along the lines of the Bush 'privatization' proposal, which is completely impossible without the aforementioned massive transitional funding, I'll give him credit if he's the only one of the two candidates to realize that there is an issue.
 
2008-07-09 03:19:05 PM  
jjorsett:Ponzi Scheme (new window).

I guess you didn't bother to read down the Wiki page to see why that analogy fails.
 
2008-07-09 03:19:38 PM  
The best part of the clip by far is when he tells everyone to get ready for some "straight talk." Careful folks, shiats about to get REAL real up in here!
 
2008-07-09 03:20:08 PM  
Kitwilly:I dont get it. He sounds right. and I am a dyed in the wool liberal. Stupid.

Yes, yes, you are stupid. Social Security works and it's working quite fine.

Those numbers of the system being bankrupt are assuming a 40 year recession. A nice 3-5% growth means we have nothing to worry about.
 
2008-07-09 03:21:38 PM  
dogfood:I know how to fix it.

Lock Box.


Yeah, but members of Congress would probably find some way to escape.
 
2008-07-09 03:23:51 PM  
DrillSergeantPoopyPants:Maybe if the democrats would allow privatization, this wouldn't be an issue Social Security would be completely gutted the first time that the market takes a good downturn.

FTFY.
 
2008-07-09 03:24:41 PM  
Cagey B:EriksMom:WHARRRRGARRBBLLL

[dog sprinkler pic]

Oh man, that is freaking hilarious.
 
2008-07-09 03:25:10 PM  
You have two choices:

1. Fix the current Social Security system.

i78.photobucket.com

or

2. Introduce the "Renew" system.

i78.photobucket.com
 
2008-07-09 03:25:36 PM  
yes lets put social security on the stock market. privatize it and use it as investment funds. Then everyone could have the same retirement those people at Enron and the State of Florida employees got.
 
2008-07-09 03:26:17 PM  
fixing ss is easy. raise the cap.
 
2008-07-09 03:30:21 PM  
This ends nothing. People are going to vote for McCain simply because of the R next to his name, no matter what his policies are or what he says on the campaign trail.

/non-story anyways
 
2008-07-09 03:30:24 PM  
Gaaah this is such a non-story.

SS is a complete mess. The government essentially took people's money and spent it away, so now future generations are forced to pay for previous generations. The system might fall apart because of the pressure from the baby boomers.
 
2008-07-09 03:31:21 PM  
DrillSergeantPoopyPants:Maybe if the democrats would allow privatization, this wouldn't be an issue. After all, he's absolutely right.

Privatization is not a solution. Eliminating it all together is the only solution. Privatization still means the government is still taking your money and forcing you to invest for retirement. Only instead of putting it into one big-ass fund, they get to tell you what private company you have to invest with.

If there's anything I trust less than the government by itself, it's the government and private industry working together.
 
2008-07-09 03:31:23 PM  
Debeo Summa Credo --
If memory serves, Sen. Obama has suggested re-examining the FICA tax structure -- perhaps raising the cap or subjecting other kinds of income to it.
 
2008-07-09 03:31:47 PM  
NittLion78:Just about the only thing he could do to make me cast support for him is say, "We're getting rid of Social Security and if you don't want to pay into it anymore, you don't have to."

DING - vote tallied



THIS.

SS might have worked if the gov could have kept its hands out of the cookie jar, but being sleazy bureaucrats, they couldn't.

Why should I pay to fund boomer irresponsibility and ineptitude? Of all generations, boomers deserve to be sentenced to work until they drop.
 
2008-07-09 03:33:14 PM  
EriksMom:to compensate me for the terrible FICA taxes I have to pay to fund my goof-off 92-year old Mom.

When you're 92, you should be allowed to goof-off as much as you like.
 
2008-07-09 03:34:05 PM  
The Homer Tax:This is a case where he's right, but he's making a mistake to say it.

Agreed, but it's a shame. Not voting for the guy, but it's symptomatic that he can't speak the truth without signing a political death warrant.

The Blue Hairs will still swing waaaay over to his side, regardless. As a whole, the old vote isn't the most...informed demographic in the country, after all.

/broad brush
//still true
 
2008-07-09 03:34:24 PM  
chaotey:Why should I pay to fund boomer irresponsibility and ineptitude? Of all generations, boomers deserve to be sentenced to work until they drop.

Don't forget to blame the homeless veterans too.
 
2008-07-09 03:37:30 PM  
Hell, I agree with him - social security is screwed up. Poor choice of words on his part, maybe, but not an incorrect thing to say. Especially since I will never reap the benefits of the SS system I've been paying into since I was about 14 (it'll probably be bankrupt by the time I hit retirement age).

What does he propose to do about it, though?
 
2008-07-09 03:38:29 PM  
DeltaXi65:This is his lead in to a private account style system where the individual worker pays for his own Social Security, not someone else's. That's hardly a 'third rail' statement. It's not like he said "I pledge to end Social Security, screw old people." That would be a campaign ender.

Keep your own money is NOT social security. Some people become disabled. Some get sick. Some can not continue to work for any number of reasons. Some simply suck at saving. What make is social SECURITY is that it is a safety net.

Anyone who knows anything about government can surely see that you can't REALLY let old people starve in the streets because they didn't save money carefully. So one way or the other the government will end up paying for them. Social security is how that is handled. But it's like insurance, it only work when even the healthy people pay in to it.

Sorry if that seems unfair to you. But I suspect if you suddenly were crippled and could not work your moral indignation would not prevent you from cashing the check and buying food.

/duh
 
2008-07-09 03:39:57 PM  
The "private accounts" solution is nothing but a trillion-dollar payoff to Republican backers on Wall Street.

Social Security is solvent, and with some minor tinkering (raise the age for retirement benefits) and actual political leadership (quit using it to pay for budget shortfalls and Presidential vanity wars), it will pay benefits to today's young workers.

Every few years, some Republican bankers look at those FICA contributions and think, "if only I could get me some of those!" The country slaps their hands and we move on.
 
2008-07-09 03:41:04 PM  
Yeah, remember that surplus we had at the end of the Clinton Admin?

The one that was going to shore up SS. Of course then the Bush tax cut-borrow-and-spend admin came in.

The Tax cut he was against, and is now for.
 
2008-07-09 03:41:07 PM  
Nestea Plunge:Holy crap. This won't deep six his campaign but what an astoundingly foolish and stupid thing to say.

I'm sure there are old people that aren't rich like McCain and are living off of SS.


But he wasn't saying people on SS are a disgrace, but simply how it works is a disgrace. I agree with him. SS is just one reason I don't want the US touching my health insurance. I don't like how they handle my money now, and giving them more is like handing my debit card to a professed gambling addict.

Not to mention that the 30's is such a long time ago. Clearly anything that has stood the test of time that long has to be right. You know, like only allowing white landowners to vote, or men to vote. Why change the way something has worked for 80 years just because it's broken?
 
2008-07-09 03:42:21 PM  
DeltaXi65:That's what he said. Yes, that may be how Social Security has worked since the 30s, but that doesn't mean it's good. This is his lead in to a private account style system where the individual worker pays for his own Social Security, not someone else's. That's hardly a 'third rail' statement. It's not like he said "I pledge to end Social Security, screw old people." That would be a campaign ender.

Pushing privatization of Social Security is about as popular with old people as saying, "I pledge to end Social Security, screw old people." The AARP farking HATES that idea. That's the same AARP filled now with Boomers--who happen to be one of McCain's only group of firm supporters right now.

Straight from the AARP Website:

Call it what you want-"privatization," "personalization," "carve-outs," "private accounts," or "personal accounts"-the fact is that this would hurt the financial health of Social Security and poses a threat to the retirement security of millions of Americans and their families.
 
2008-07-09 03:43:59 PM  
Anybody who says "I want a private account that nobody else can touch". Isn't that identical to saying "It somebody in society plans poorly or has bad luck, we should simply, collectively, watch them starve to death in the street. ???

Seriously, unless you think EVERYBODY will save diligently you have to have a system that covers dumbasses. The corollary is that there are more dumbasses that we like to believe.
 
2008-07-09 03:44:47 PM  
Dancin_In_Anson:tgregory:wait... saying "social security is a disgrace" is campaign ending?

Well, it does go against the "what can my country do for me" train of thought that is all the rage.


Exactly. Social Security would never pass today -- people just want what's theirs. Reagan and his insane minions have turned the nation into a collection of self-centered conservative brats -- whose only concept of country is the glorification and enrichment of the self.

The Greatest Generation and its programs for all Americansn was replaced reductive egotism.
 
2008-07-09 03:45:00 PM  
Straight from the AARP Website:

Call it what you want-"privatization," "personalization," "carve-outs," "private accounts," or "personal accounts"-the fact is that this would hurt the financial health of Social Security and poses a threat to the retirement security of millions of Americans and their families.


Hooo boy, that's gonna leave a mark Senator McCain....
 
2008-07-09 03:46:32 PM  
Shrugging Atlas:Pushing privatization of Social Security is about as popular with old people as saying, "I pledge to end Social Security, screw old people." The AARP farking HATES that idea. That's the same AARP filled now with Boomers--who happen to be one of McCain's only group of firm supporters right now.

Maybe McCain should campaign to the elderly on the line "you should have married rich, like me!"
 
2008-07-09 03:48:28 PM  
jjorsett:Ponzi Scheme (new window). I think the public is increasingly becoming aware that Social Security as currently implemented is untenable. I give McCain credit for having the guts to say so.

Republican lie. Social Security has been solvent for generations -- and continues to be so.

But when you elect Republicans that have been actively trying to bankrupt the nation, both fiscally and morally, you can make it appear to be in real trouble.

Destroying the nation has the side benefit of enriching the filthy rich.

Go back to a progressive tax and social security has all the money it needs.
 
2008-07-09 03:49:18 PM  
This is a farked up situation. we have a tiger by the tail, and can't continue to hang on indefinitely, and don't dare let go. And the wide disparity of people's circumstances make it almost impossible to achieve any kind of agreement as to what should be done. Should we just shut it down?
That would work for me. I'm 58, have paid into it all my life, and if they gave me back what I've paid in with minimal interest, Id be able to do about as well for myself as SS would if I invested it right now. But a lot of people are on it, or about to retire - and if they were not wealthy, they'd be screwed. Phasing it out slowly would work better, but result in endless political squabbling. Fix it? Well, maybe. A means test, remove the cap, pay back what's been borrowed by the general fund - but I tend to suspect that those here who say that would only be buying time are correct. It's one hell of a quandary.
 
2008-07-09 03:49:24 PM  
McCain, playing to his (greed is good, greed works) base, completely forgot the bit where the present-day retirees paid for THEIR OWN retirement. They didn't just turn up and say "yes please, give me the cash". They paid their dues, and the kids of today are paying THEIR dues so that they collect when THEY retire, and so on. But McCain says they didn't. He's saying the money the old ones are getting is coming from the kids.

Is he on crack?

Another thing he should think about: that money was invested in the Government for the people. T-bills (Treasury investments) didn't give the meteoric returns the Stock Market did in the 1980s and 1990s... but they never crashed either. Slow and steady won the race.

Let me give you an example. On April 5, 2005, Bush was reported as saying this:

"A lot of people in America think there is a trust - that we take your money in payroll taxes and then we hold it for you and then when you retire, we give it back to you," Bush said in a speech at the University of West Virginia at Parkersburg.

"But that's not the way it works," Bush said. "There is no trust 'fund' - just IOUs that I saw firsthand," Bush said.

---

Bush has proposed transforming the Depression-era program by allowing younger workers to divert income equivalent to 4 percentage points of the 12.4 percent payroll tax that funds Social Security into a personal investment account.


Just IOUs. And Bush wanted to take that and let people stick it in the markets instead. Three years ago.

The Treasury discontinued the 3-year Treasury Note in 2007, but you can still get the price of a theoretical 3-year Constant Maturity Treasury (CMT) Note (based on the most recently auctioned "real" securities).

And right now, this 3-Year CMT is currently worth 3.08% a year.

When Bush did his little talk about the IOUs and slips of paper in a filing cabinet (which isn't even true in itself: in today's computer age, investors no longer get honest-to-goodness Treasury bonds they can hold in their hands. But, by law, the bureau creates paper bonds to put in the file cabinet just in case anybody, like Bush, wants to see the trust fund) ...anyway, the week he did that, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 10461.34.

With the growth of just the 3-year CMT at 3.08% a year for three years, T-bills would push that value up to the equivalent Dow Jones value of 11,458.05.

Right now, the Dow is lower than that. It's at 11,233.09 and still going down for the day.


Putting money in the Stock Markets is no different from any other type of gambling. The odds may be different, but it's still as uncertain. The only people that win all the time with the Stock Markets are the same people that win all the time in Las Vegas, and it's not the small folks that are putting their money down and hoping for the best. It's the people that run the companies that take the money. People that know Bush, people that like Bush.

Social Security was set up away from all of that: as a sure thing. Outside the risks of the market that ruined people in the 1920s and 1930s. And according to John McCain, that's "a disgrace".

And if we had done it the Republican Way three years ago, we would have lost hundreds of millions of dollars. And people are here saying "duuh, it sounds like a plan to me"?!??!! If that's the case, there's this bridge in Brooklyn you might want to buy off me.

Bye, John!
 
2008-07-09 03:51:19 PM  
From the 2008 Social Security Trustees' Report:

"Social Security could be brought into actuarial balance over the next 75 years in various ways, including an immediate increase of 14 percent in payroll tax revenues (from 12.4 percent to 14.1 percent) or an immediate reduction in benefits of 12 percent or some combination of the two."

here's the link:

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/trsummary.html

Notice that they do not go on to say "Or, we can shovel trillions of FICA dollars toward Wall Street."
 
2008-07-09 03:54:28 PM  
Straight from the AARP Website:

The AARP has a website? Is it like Fogey FaceBook? Can I cruise GILF pics at the AARP website?
 
2008-07-09 03:57:27 PM  
Jackpot777:McCain, playing to his (greed is good, greed works) base, completely forgot the bit where the present-day retirees paid for THEIR OWN retirement. They didn't just turn up and say "yes please, give me the cash". They paid their dues, and the kids of today are paying THEIR dues so that they collect when THEY retire, and so on. But McCain says they didn't. He's saying the money the old ones are getting is coming from the kids.

Is he on crack?

Another thing he should think about: that money was invested in the Government for the people. T-bills (Treasury investments) didn't give the meteoric returns the Stock Market did in the 1980s and 1990s... but they never crashed either. Slow and steady won the race.

Let me give you an example. On April 5, 2005, Bush was reported as saying this:

"A lot of people in America think there is a trust - that we take your money in payroll taxes and then we hold it for you and then when you retire, we give it back to you," Bush said in a speech at the University of West Virginia at Parkersburg.

"But that's not the way it works," Bush said. "There is no trust 'fund' - just IOUs that I saw firsthand," Bush said.

---

Bush has proposed transforming the Depression-era program by allowing younger workers to divert income equivalent to 4 percentage points of the 12.4 percent payroll tax that funds Social Security into a personal investment account.

Just IOUs. And Bush wanted to take that and let people stick it in the markets instead. Three years ago.

The Treasury discontinued the 3-year Treasury Note in 2007, but you can still get the price of a theoretical 3-year Constant Maturity Treasury (CMT) Note (based on the most recently auctioned "real" securities).

And right now, this 3-Year CMT is currently worth 3.08% a year.

When Bush did his little talk about the IOUs and slips of paper in a filing cabinet (which isn't even true in itself: in today's computer age, investors no longer get honest-to-goodness Treasury bonds they can hold in their hands. But, by law, the bureau creates paper bonds to put in the file cabinet just in case anybody, like Bush, wants to see the trust fund) ...anyway, the week he did that, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 10461.34.

With the growth of just the 3-year CMT at 3.08% a year for three years, T-bills would push that value up to the equivalent Dow Jones value of 11,458.05.

Right now, the Dow is lower than that. It's at 11,233.09 and still going down for the day.

Putting money in the Stock Markets is no different from any other type of gambling. The odds may be different, but it's still as uncertain. The only people that win all the time with the Stock Markets are the same people that win all the time in Las Vegas, and it's not the small folks that are putting their money down and hoping for the best. It's the people that run the companies that take the money. People that know Bush, people that like Bush.

Social Security was set up away from all of that: as a sure thing. Outside the risks of the market that ruined people in the 1920s and 1930s. And according to John McCain, that's "a disgrace".

And if we had done it the Republican Way three years ago, we would have lost hundreds of millions of dollars. And people are here saying "duuh, it sounds like a plan to me"?!??!! If that's the case, there's this bridge in Brooklyn you might want to buy off me.

Bye, John!


The stock market over the last three years has done marginally worse than the equivalent yield of a 3-year Treasury, so the stock market is like gambling?? Check out how the stock market has done over the last 10, 15, 30 years, the amount of time people save for retirement, and compare it to the returns on "risk-free" bonds. And the idea that people will somehow be able to take their savings and invest it like gamblers in Vegas, rather than in a balanced, regulated mutual fund, is a strawman that deserved to die many years ago but is still being trotted out today.
 
2008-07-09 03:57:43 PM  
Social Security has been around long enough that when a person retires, it should be using funds paid into the system by the person retiring.

What McCain is suggesting is that Social Security system is instead one giant pyramid scheme where young people fund the retirement of the older generation.

As the ratio of young people to retirees declines over the next few decades, this is going to cause issues.

Career ending my ass, failmitter. It is the farking truth.
 
2008-07-09 03:58:26 PM  
EriksMom:No mention in the article of how Obama admits he is a secret muslim terrorist sleeper cell drug lord... WHARRRRGARRBBLLL

LOL, that's like military-grade McCainDemocrat repellent right there.
 
2008-07-09 03:58:26 PM  
Spectroboy

What makes you think I'm advocating for abolishing SSI and Disability? Of course that shouldn't go away. But the way we pay for it now doesn't have to be the way we always pay for it. As for the private accounts idea, the idea has always been a voluntary one. Bush's plan would have allowed for choice - you can choose to self-direct your money to your own plan, or you could opt for traditional social security. The safety net will be there. But the system doesn't have to work the way it does now. It's still social security.

McCain's point, which was spun out of all recognition by the folks at Daily Kos, was that he wants to reform the system. That's hardly the "end Social Security" fearmongering they'd lead you to believe from the post.
 
2008-07-09 03:59:06 PM  
Dancin_In_Anson:tgregory:wait... saying "social security is a disgrace" is campaign ending?

Well, it does go against the "what can my country do for me" train of thought that is all the rage.


Oh, ideologically and financially it is a disgrace, it's a third rail because of the AARP and their voting block/lobby, nothing to do with its actual merits.

The argument in the blog is stupid, but it's a bad statement to make from the standpoint of practical politics.
 
2008-07-09 04:00:20 PM  
jso2897:It's one hell of a quandary.

Not really. It's B.S.

blog.heritage.org

That graph has been the same since Social Security made Republicans flip a lid decades ago -- the explosion is always 5 years out, it's always going bankrupt, it's always going to destroy the nation.

It always stays solvent. Depending on how you want to project future costs, you can get any damn prediction you want. In this case, it's always doom.

Even in this stoopid graph, which they stretch as much as they can , for nearly 4 decades S.S. has stayed between 5% and 8%.

But look out! 10 years from now -- just like it was 10 years from now 10 years ago -- we're all going to pay for this insane plan to keep the elderly from starving to death.
 
2008-07-09 04:01:29 PM  
dogfood:Yeah, remember that surplus we had at the end of the Clinton Admin?

The one that was going to shore up SS. Of course then the Bush tax cut-borrow-and-spend admin came in.

The Tax cut he was against, and is now for.


Except if you believed Paul Krugman, the numbers didn't add up, even at the end of the Clinton administration. But Bush said that's how he would use the surplus, and Krugman (correctly) called him out on it, saying that relying on this would fall short of fixing the system. This was, in fact, what put Krugman on the map in the world of liberal economists.

Now? Now Republicans are recognizing the problem and promising to do something substantial about it, and the liberals (especially Krugman) are referring to it as "scare-mongering" and "right-wing talking points." (In the partisan world, you see, people who disagree with you don't have "ideas"; they have "talking points.")

Go figure. Left and right, they're both nuts.
 
2008-07-09 04:01:46 PM  
Howzitgoin', McCainDemocrat. Good here. My 10" pattern Koa wood flooring arrived today. 21 boxes I had to unload at lunch time.

Our back is killing me.
 
2008-07-09 04:02:45 PM  
Shrugging Atlas

Yes, the AARP is against private accounts. But that doesn't mean that talking about how Social Security is funded equals 'screw old people'.

Look at this practically - if McCain was 42, I'd advise he should stay away from this. But he's not, so a lot of the traditional concerns regarding discussing Social Security don't come into play.
 
2008-07-09 04:04:07 PM  
nectar_of_the_goddess
Hell, I agree with him - social security is screwed up. Poor choice of words on his part, maybe, but not an incorrect thing to say. Especially since I will never reap the benefits of the SS system I've been paying into since I was about 14 (it'll probably be bankrupt by the time I hit retirement age).

What does he propose to do about it, though?


It's not going to go bankrupt. The sky isn't really falling.

Firstly, the projections that show Social Security going into debt are predicting it will do so around 2045. All of this is based on projections of US economic growth in the years until then. And they lowballed those projections.

Secondly, they predict by the year 2100 that Social Security will accumulate about three trillion dollars in debt. By contrast, the general budget accumulated three trillion dollars of debt in the last six years alone. Somehow I think if our economy and government can survive that debt increase, they can take on a debt that's only 1/10th as much.

Social Security is probably the single most fiscally secure program the government HAS -- the general budget bleeds money all over the place, while SS has in the past 70+ years never yet gone into debt.
 
2008-07-09 04:04:48 PM  
DarnoKonrad:That graph has been the same since Social Security made Republicans flip a lid decades ago -- the explosion is always 5 years out, it's always going bankrupt, it's always going to destroy the nation.

Where I come from, what you are doing is called "making shiat up." The explosion was NEVER 5 years out, it's not 5 years out even today. The demographic trend has been well understood and estimates have always placed it some time around 2040-2050 (or in your case 2052).

DarnoKonrad:But look out! 10 years from now -- just like it was 10 years from now 10 years ago -- we're all going to pay for this insane plan to keep the elderly from starving to death.

Yeah, except that even the graph you posted doesn't say that. You fail.
 
2008-07-09 04:05:33 PM  
If Daily Kos was ever right about a "Campaign Ending" moment, then we'd have different candidates. Who DK would find a "Campaign Ending" moment for. Ad infinitum.
 
Displayed 50 of 224 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report